2012 Wont Happen:AnonOps wasn't a hierarchy, it was a way to organize attacks. By exposing the identities of the people involved in these attacks, Ryan (which is not an Anonymous title) has betrayed the core principle of Anonymous.

Not one of the core principles. The only core principle. Remain Anonymous in your operations, whatever they are.

as others have said, they dont want anonymity, they just dont want to be responsible for their actions. If they actually wanted to be anonymous they wouldn't claim to be part of a group with a name, identity, and freakin website

This sounds like the setup to a face to face showdown and the most dramatic nerd slap-fight in history. Of course this all goes to prove a point: you can't have this amount of power gathered into a group and not expect leadership to enter into power.

That's because you're thinking of anon as a single organization. It's not. It's an amalgam of hackers and script kiddies. Just because an anon picks up a cause it doesn't mean that he has universal, or even majority, support. In fact it's entirely possible... actually pretty likely... that different anon groups will eventually find themselves divided on an important issue and hacking in opposition to one another. And that's OK. It's all about the lulz anyway, right? Anon vs. Anon will would be a mad fun show.

Posting member IP addresses is just LOW. This Ryan guy is either one serious douche bag or a fed snitch.

Or "Ryan" doesn't actually exist. He might an identity created by the feds for the purposes of infiltrating and destabilizing Anon from the inside.

I can't imagine anyone would risk the kind of shitstorm that could come down on them for betraying anonymous like that, the whole fed operation angle is starting to look more and more likely.

RDubayoo:Oh, and another thing, I thought Anonymous didn't have centralized leadership and all that jazz? And yet this article describes a "hierarchy" being established within them, and Anonymous leaders "going rogue" and abusing roles and... you know what? I've decided that from now on I'm not going to believe a single word written by any Anonymous apologist ever again.

You don't see that's the entire point this has happened?

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that a hierarchy of leadership was created and that the Anonymous apologists weren't being honest about who and what Anonymous really was. And it may have (supposedly) been Ryan's motive for starting this civil war, but I don't think he quite gets that this hierarchy was inevitable, as was its destruction under the weight of its members' stupidity.

Ugh. Anonymous has no centralised websites. Anonymous has no leaders. If a group of them have a centralised website or leader, they cease to be Anonymous. The whole point of calling it "Anonymous" is giving a name to a group that can't really rightly be called a group in any reasonable sense.

Every one of these news stories shows all over again that the writers still just don't get it.

So amorphous Anonymous is unanimous in decrying this boisterous member who is incongruous with their sanctimonious ways. But if they are so ubiquitous, certainly the group's politics won't be 100% harmonious. Sooner or later, someone would become cantankerous, rebellious, even, and revolt in a manner most ceremonious. Whatever. If they are so enormous, then some of their members are bound to be deciduous.

That's because you're thinking of anon as a single organization. It's not. It's an amalgam of hackers and script kiddies. Just because an anon picks up a cause it doesn't mean that he has universal, or even majority, support. In fact it's entirely possible... actually pretty likely... that different anon groups will eventually find themselves divided on an important issue and hacking in opposition to one another. And that's OK. It's all about the lulz anyway, right? Anon vs. Anon will would be a mad fun show.

Posting member IP addresses is just LOW. This Ryan guy is either one serious douche bag or a fed snitch.

Or "Ryan" doesn't actually exist. He might an identity created by the feds for the purposes of infiltrating and destabilizing Anon from the inside.

I can't imagine anyone would risk the kind of shitstorm that could come down on them for betraying anonymous like that, the whole fed operation angle is starting to look more and more likely.

Unlikely. The Feds wouldn't publically destroy the credibility of their mole and publically leak the IP addresses like "ryan" did. Any smart government agency (and they are smart) would have merely covertly investigated the IP's and performed arrests, and Anons would assume those guys simply screwed up and got caught. If the Fed wanted to take down AnonOps, they would have probably arrested "Owen" and other AnonOps administrators, moderators, domain name owners first, seized the domain names not under "ryan's" control, and then shut down the entire damn thing once they had the rights to all the domain names. "Ryan's" actions are too public, cause too little damage, and are far too weak to have been a government plot.

Jaime_Wolf:Ugh. Anonymous has no centralised websites. Anonymous has no leaders. If a group of them have a centralised website or leader, they cease to be Anonymous. The whole point of calling it "Anonymous" is giving a name to a group that can't really rightly be called a group in any reasonable sense.

Every one of these news stories shows all over again that the writers still just don't get it.

I've had this argument with a few people so many times, but it seems like you guys are the ones not getting it...

BUT there is a core group of people who make up the roster for most of these "doings". By definition of the word, they are NOT "anonymous"... but they are using that word as a name for themselves. It's ironic. Doesn't mean it's null.

"Anon" is an idea that far too many neck bearded basement dwellers support without fully realizing the consequences of their actions.

If "anon" continues to do this kind of shit... Mark my words, it will not be long before government mandates are put into place that regulate the internet to a point where your internet activity is monitored 100% of the time that you're connected.

How the hell can there be "factions" within Anonymous? Nobody has any names, and factions require names and identities to be able to function. In Anonymous everyone has a faction of one - themselves. Just like in real life! When everyone is called Anonymous, you don't know who the hell you are targeting - just whether or not you agree with their actions. Classic anarchy. It's not factionalism.

There has been a rallying cry within Anonymous for a group calling themselves Magnaminous, but as soon as they become Magnaminous, they are no longer Anonymous. It's bloody stupid, ultimately self-defeating, and it's just giving the media something to actually report on, since there's nothing else to actually scare the populace with now that Osama Bin Ladin has been killed.

I think it might be too little about a month too late if they're hoping to take away any of the media attention they've got. Hopefully they'll all annoy each other rather than us until people show up to arrest them.

SelectivelyEvil13:So amorphous Anonymous is unanimous in decrying this boisterous member who is incongruous with their sanctimonious ways. But if they are so ubiquitous, certainly the group's politics won't be 100% harmonious. Sooner or later, someone would become cantankerous, rebellious, even, and revolt in a manner most ceremonious. Whatever. If they are so enormous, then some of their members are bound to be deciduous.

Bloody marvellous!

There so much drama surrounding Anonymous of late, I wouldn't be surprised if somebody decided to make a documentary about it.

Seriously guys. I mean seriously. Am I the only one eating nachos and cheese whilst watching this? I mean popcorn is great and everything but nachos all the way. *Slurp* Well I can't wait to see how this progresses and turns out. I mean it already sounds like something big is brewing.